United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2025

Cantwell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Cantwell v. Commissioner of Social Security
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Decided August 12, 2025
Cantwell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MARY CANTWELL, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:25-cv-520-WFJ-AAS FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,1 Defendant. _________________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) moves to remand this action to an administrative law judge to offer the plaintiff an opportunity for a supplemental hearing and issue a new decision. (Doc. 16). This request is unopposed. (Id. at p. 1).

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner’s unopposed motion for entry of judgment with remand (Doc. 16) be GRANTED.

The court recommends this case be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. Under Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Bisignano should be substituted as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit through the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

§ 405(g), and the Clerk be directed to enter a judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, consistent with the decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302 (1998).

ENTERED in Tampa, Florida, on August 12, 2025.

Arranda. Agno Sariong AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO PARTIES The parties have fourteen days from the date they are served a copy of this report to file written objections to this report’s proposed findings and recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. A party’s failure to object timely in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order adopting this report’s unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.